The Birth of Christianity (30-39 CE)

[@stephenandersen4625]

As a catholic, I've always been taught to consider the life/words of Jesus in the context of 1st century Jewish culture and politics. this was very useful. thank you.

[@joseg.solano1891]

God bless. Flee catholicism, it's not pleasant to God.

[@paisaboy6511]

@@joseg.solano1891 Apostolic succession and Jesus Christ himself think otherwise fool. God is spitting at your man made beliefs.

[@joseg.solano1891]

@@paisaboy6511 Well, Jesus himself is against you regarding what you've just called me (see Matthew 5:22)

[@joseg.solano1891]

@@paisaboy6511 Apostolic succession? If that's the pope, I don't think he's the vicar (substitute). Jesus said the one who'd come is the Spirit of Truth. The pope took for himself the position of the Holy Spirit over some assemblies.

[@paisaboy6511]

@@joseg.solano1891Jesus Christ -> St Peter. imagine believing something that's not true lol have fun heretic.

[@MahDryBread]

Hey, thanks for teaching me about this!

[@nathanielzarny1176]

Holy crap! Didn't expect to see you here! Big fan!

[@placeholder8768]

I just found this channel after the recommendation by J.J Mcullough, and I do not regret it. Jewish history is something I haven’t ever really thought about, but now am very interested in thanks to these videos. I say this without exaggeration- you deserve, at least, 100 times your current subscribers.

[@jsteele07189]

which JJ Mcullough video mentions this one?

[@danielmalinen6337]

It is generally taught that the sword of Jesus does not mean the real sword but his sword is his teaching. In the gospels, Jesus speaks that his teaching is so powerful that it will tear families apart and turn family members against each other. However, it is difficult to say how much of what is written about Jesus goes back to the real historical Jesus and how much of his teachings have been forged afterwards. As is well known, we know nothing sure about the historical Jesus.

[@HeatherLandon227]

So I finally started binging the entire playlist last night- I wish I had *this* much context for everything I was taught as a kid in Sunday School. They never told us about the conflict that was ongoing in the previous episode and it was never this in-depth. It's like watching Billy Eliot without the context of 1980's UK and understanding some things but never getting the whole lead up.

[@luke3807]

Bethlehem had no lodging room for Mary, which suggests it was during a major feast and close to Jerusalem. Pilgrims would lodge in villages near Jerusalem during the mandatory feasts.

[@marcuscaines9168]

@@honeysucklecat all religion is fiction.

[@ryr1974]

Thank you for the emphasis on the presentation of Jesus as a rabi and someone who is portrayed as educated.

[@megancrager4397]

Why? Because it matches your beliefs and it doesn't challenge you?

[@ryr1974]

@@megancrager4397 Because It helps us to better understand the setting of what is oftyen going on. It helps explain why jesus is so foccused on the Pharasiees and That shap criticism sounds differenet and leadss you to respond differeently in some instances when we understand it as he waas critiquing his own group - so it counters the anti semitism stuff in some ways and it also helps us see the words to roman and gendtiles in a different way since he rarely critiques them so did that mean he was down with them in all ways more acurately it shows a kkind of rehtorical indifference. The educated point and his being a rabbi point to other helppfuull things about his ability and authority to go various towns and make pronouncemnets - why is he teaching so much in capaerium likely where he worked. I certainly dont intend to discount the real allignment with those in povertyand dont want to shut down a mor libberationist read of the gospels but in terms of historical plausibility the only reason to read jesus family as poor that I can find is the purchase of turtle doves rather than a lamb and that is explained by teh fact that they where traveling . but twll; me more about your objection to my responce how do you see it

[@KarmaKraftttt]

As a Christian Catholic l must say it was a great video. Keep up the good work!

[@Vmac1394]

It is funny how Peter was meant to be the rock upon which the Christian movement would be based because Paul's epistles define much of Christian doctrine and his writings take up 60% of the New Testament itself and he didn't even know Jesus in the flesh. Though considering of the 5 great centers of early Christianity, that only Rome did not fall to Islam, Peter's see could be considered the rock upon which global Christendom was born.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Cool to hear the Jewish historical perspective on this. Few corrections, #1 : At 4:20 The Verse “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the Earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34) Is not referring to Zealot language. In context Jesus is speaking of peace between different religious/philosophical positions aka ecumenicalism. He stating that rather his message will cause division amongst the groups. The verse prior Matt 10:33 states “ [33] but whoever denies ME before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” So the subject here isn’t concerning political zealot matters, it’s about denying who Jesus is. The next verses continue to outline how the “sword” will cause divisions in households concerning him. Now whether you think he was a Zealot or not is a different discussion, but that verse is discussing a different matter. #2 -7:28 Actually all of Jesus’s *apostles* were Jewish, i think perhaps you meant followers/Disciples (students) which in that case you’d be correct. However the 12 original apostles (minus Judas) plus Mattias and Paul of Tarsus who form the Apostles were all Jews #3 7:41 Lastly Peter didn’t abandon Kosher Laws. In Acts 10:9-17 Peter’s vision is about not about him changing his diet, rather changing his view on associating with Gentiles who do eat unclean food. He says so himself a few verses down in talking to said Gentile (Cornelius) Acts 10:28 [28] And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but *God has shown me* that I should not call any person common or unclean. So Peter himself never abandoned Kosher nor the Paul or any of the apostles, the dietary laws simply weren’t a requirement for gentiles to join the faith. Unless there’s a Jewish source stating that Peter began to eat non Kosher foods that i’m missing? Either super cool that you were able to just walk up to where Peter was staying in Jaffa LOOL.

[@0861USMC]

None of that is Jesus speaking. That is all input from the unknown writers (probably educated Greeks) writing stories 40, 60, 80, and 120 years after the execution. In fact none writers ever met Jesus. Two could have if they were 25 years old at the time. I think they were older. So the writers would have been 70-95 years old. Again, that's why an educated Greek wrote them. Most Jews were illiterate at that time.

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@0861USMC Firstly, the video assumes the presumption that Jesus is speaking at 4:28 when it quotes Matthew 10:34. Thus I am well within my right to base my argument that it is indeed Jesus’s words and correct his interpretation of them. Now onto your skepticism, Firstly none of the gospels are dated to more than 60 years after Jesus’s execution. The last gospel (John) is dated between 90-95 AD. Jesus’s execution is estimated to occur 33-36AD. That’s a 62 year difference at most. Not sure where you got 80 & 120 years. And these are conservative estimates, there are plenty of reasons to actually assume earlier authorship but for the sake of quick conversation we’ll go with scholarly consensus despite my disagreements. Next, concerning the actual authors, to say “none of them met Jesus” is a baseless claim. Out of the 4 gospel authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) two of them are claimed to be disciples. Matthew & John, all of our manuscript evidence that has an author title attributes their respective gospels to them no matter where the gospel is found , and all our early church writings attribute their gospels to them. In order for all christians across the mediterranean to unanimously agree with this in less than 100 years would require an extremely powerful institution which simply didn’t exist as Christianity was *illegal* in Rome at the time. The only logical conclusion is that the autographs (original copies) weren’t anonymous and contained the authors name on a title page of their respective gospel, whilst the work itself was in the 3rd person. Lastly concerning the education of the authors , Let us remember who are the proposed authors of each gospels and examine their validity one by one. Luke for example is Greek and a physician, in fact he’s the only non Jewish author in the Christian bible. Thus your complaint about him being an illiterate Jew here is irrelevant lol. Mark, (Yehonan/Marcus) is said to be an interpreter and lived abroad not solely in Judea, thus it is not inconceivable that he would’ve been fluent in Greek the lingua franca of the roman world. Thus your objection here doesn’t hold water either. Now onto the last 2 Candidates who are actually claimed to be disciples thus eyewitnesses of Jesus- Mathew & John Matthew is easy to deal with, Matthew was a tax collector in Galilee. In that occupation one would need to wrote tax receipts and other documents as well as interact frequently with the Roman overlords. It would be almost ridiculous to say he wasn’t educated and fluent in Greek. He probably even knew intermediate Latin. Last proposed author is John (Yehonan bar Zebedee) to which your objection finally has some merit as he was a fisherman from Galilee, thus it would make sense to be skeptical of his authorship. In facts in the new testament it states John was uneducated- Acts 4:13 But let us take a few things into consideration…. 1) John didn’t remain a fisherman his whole life, from our earliest church history writings John spent the rest of his life after Jesus’s resurrection starting churches around the mediterranean, it is not surprising that he could have picked up greek as it was the lingua franca 2) The grammar/vocabulary in John’s gospel isn’t that sophisticated, for example John overuses the greek word for “and” (Kai) and hardly uses any other synonyms. This shows the author most likely wasn’t an “educated greek” but more of one with basic greek knowledge, probably a L2 speaker. 3) And most obviously, John could have easily had aid from a scribe fluent in greek who could have helped correct any mistakes he made, and give a few tips here and there. Paul of Tarsus who was fluent in Greek made use of a scribe ( for eg. Romans 16:22) why is it implausible to assume John had aid from a local Christian scribe in his congregation? Thus there simply isn’t a reasonable explanation in my view to deny the traditional gospel authorship. And Lastly, even if we suppose that Matt & John aren’t eyewitnesses, and that the gospels were written 120+ years later, that still isn’t reason to assume the words quoted aren’t of Jesus. Cassius Dio born in 155 AD is one of our best sources for Julius Cesar’s words who died 200 years prior, no one would suggest the words in Cassius’s writings aren’t Cesar’s simply due to the gap. Seems like a double standard placed on the gospels

[@0861USMC]

@@sjappiyah4071 The Gospels (four) are estimated between 66-110 AD. Earliest is maybe 35 years after. I meant other gospels written well over 100 years, Gospel of Peter, The Infancy Gospel ospel of Thomas, Gospel of The Nazerines, etc. Weird because Paul and Mark were writing earlier, in the 30s but no mention of Jesus’s birth so Mathew and Luke make up a Jesus’s birth story. Paul and Mark just never heard of the birth story. It's a those, numerous writers picked the Director's cut for Jesus.

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@0861USMC The gospels(four) are rather estimated between 66-95 AD, most scholars have abandoned the 110AD Estimation as we have fragments of the gospel of John (the last gospel) such as P52 estimation from 125AD-175AD Regardless, when it comes to the non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Peter we’re in agreement, these come 120+ years later and mostly do not contain any legitimate quotes from Jesus. Almost no one would argue their validity in the first place. Lastly, not that it’s related but since you brought it up, Regarding paul & Mark not including the virgin birth thus making it a “made up story” is the classic fallacy of omission. Simply because a writer omits an event, does not mean it doesn’t occur. Paul omits Jesus’s baptism by John the Baptizer for example, which all Jesus historians confirm is one of the most certain facts of his life. Does it mean it didn’t happen then? No of course not, that’s fallacious logic. Keep in mind that Paul is not a gospel writer, Paul is more concerned about theology and church practice in his letters, not Jesus’s biography . Also, Paul’s letters are dated from the late 40’s to mid 60’s, not the 30’s.

[@0861USMC]

@@sjappiyah4071 There is no Mark as a disciple. Mathew is not a tax collector, that is Levi according to Mark and Luke. John doesn't even mention the birth of Jesus. It's a complete mess. All four Gospels are copying each other using different copies and are writing them in different places 30-85 years after the execution.

[@RdioActiveRetard]

You've just become my new favorite channel, I just binge watched this whole playlist and I have a paper due in a few hours. Good luck with the virus, I hope this means you'll stay inside and make more videos though

[@MrHanderson91]

Amazing channel...I think this will be one of those channels that blows up big time!

[@shanemize3775]

As a Christian who greatly honors the Jewish roots of my faith and very definitely honors Israel, I really respect how you handled this video. You really did it very respectfully. While I don't agree with you about everything you presented in this episode, obviously, it gives me a great deal to think about and I appreciate that. Thank you and God bless you, my friend!

[@The42Horsepower]

I think one good thing to note is that when Christ speaks of the "sword", what He most probably means is that His teachings will cause division. Indeed, elsewhere He speaks of how households will be divided because of Him, and some people stop following Him because His teachings are difficult to accept.

[@chandlerwheeler7605]

Yeah Jesus was definitely not a zealot. If he was he would have been a conqueror not a sacrificial lamb.

[@myfavs6843]

@@chandlerwheeler7605 exactly just like the catholic church takes bible verses out of context to use them for thier pagan agenda so does this man with his video

[@infinitelink]

@@myfavs6843 Without getting into his efforts at depth, besides apparent misstatements this video seems like a fair overview of understanding among currently somewhat informed Jewish folk. There are several points of similarity between things attributed to the Zealots and between Jesus, and yet Jesus if pinpointed to identify with some factions is nonetheless in moral terms a Pharisee--something people tend not to understand because they think he must entirely be repudiating them when, for example, he teaches to do as they say not as they do... the point there being a challenge to hypocrisy, not all the substance they might teach. (Though in putting traditions over the word, he challenges that too. In that sense, minus the despiritualizing tendencies in the ancient forbears to them, some compare with "Kairites.") There are other points worth challenging--e.g. that Paul sought to make Christianity as district as possible (though let's be fair, his own contemporaries call his writing difficult), perhaps on account of his challenging "Judaizers" or circumcision **for covenantal faith**, among other matters. Of course, if you look at Paul, he himself remains Jewish: he just didn't preach that those laws **for Israel as a corporeal body politic and Sovereign nation** should be applied, or improperly conflated, with the faith. (To oversimplify.) Put another way, Paul predecesses the idea you see some Rabbis teach that gentiles can worship God without becoming a Jew if they keep certain moral commandments. Only with added belief in in Jesus being the to Messiah. Crucial but often missed, his use and commendation of "the Scriptures" **refers to the "Old Testament"** Scriptures: laws there he does apply much as Jesus, e.g. Jesus forbidding divorce except for "porneia" refers to Hebrew that's disputed in Rabbinc schools due to the bowl pointings but, in context, is fairly certainly meant to indicate "sexual immorality" rather than "any displeasure including burning of your morning toast" (two schools of Rabbinic thought, one being very much in line with the tenor of the law and its provisions for care of women in a hard patriarchy, the other unfortunately which has become more in line with thinking considered "Jewish" as opposed to e.g. "Christian"). Paul touches similar things as well. And then some. One of the best points this video makes that most miss: the "New Testament" consists, in large part, of writings that aren't very sensible outside the context of Jewish life at this time--literally misunderstood unless you know about controversies like that at worst or barely to incompletely comprehensible at best if those things aren't known. A lot that passes as "Biblical Christianity" tends actually to be... from national traditions of men that they unwittingly read into the Scriptures as originalist. Even "the golden rule" is a fusion of sayings from masterful teachers whom Jews still regards as founding schools of thought. The "Sinners Prayer" actually has a site by Jerusalem like a sort of temple because it perfectly fulfills Rabbinic criteria for correct prayer (it just doesn't tend to be said by Jews because of the rule to remain distinct, but some celebrate it). Methinks this feller just didn't deep dive for years to get this perfect, but he's fine far far worse. This one was decent. Props to the creator!

[@sjappiyah4071]

Exactly, it’s not talking about literal violence lol

[@okhuibutala1640]

Heb

[@Lxx-tc4xc]

The pivot point was Peter's agreeing with Paul's argument, formulated a few years after the Crucifixion, that gentile male converts to the Yeshuah-centered faith need not undergo circumcision, and would not be required to circumcise their newborn sons. This pivot point is discussed in Acts 15. In several passages from his letters, Paul revisited his firm belief that circumcision and conformity to other aspects of the Torah, were useless. A number of Jewish converts around the eastern Mediterranean had tried to argue otherwise. Nevertheless, today Coptic and Ethiopian Christians practice circumcision. Starting in the 1870s, circumcision became popular in the English speaking world, for reasons having nothing to do with the Torah. Today, over 100 million English speaking gentile men were circumcised as newborns. The only first world country in which a majority of newborn gentile boys are circumcised, is the USA. Countries where circumcision was once popular but is now no longer practiced, are New Zealand, the UK and parts of Canada, soon to be joined by Australia. 1950-60, some American evangelical Protestants began claiming, contra Acts and Paul's letters, that circumcision, while not required for salvation, was meritorious for Christians. This contravenes Acts 15 and a number of passages in Paul's letters. The only aspect of this video that surprised me is your claim that Yeshuah was probably a Zealot. You do not mention the possibility that Yeshuah may have spent time in an Essenian monastery such as the community that wrote the Dead Sea scrolls.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

The sword was hyperbolic. In a later verse Addition with context suggests a metaphorical sword of tongue. Key word suggest. If it turned out to be literally a sword than meh but keep in mind most his violence are him telling parables or the literal actual violence at the temple. Jesus the same man scolded his follower for slicing someone's ear off.

[@Great_Olaf5]

On the one hand, you've got a point, but even as a Christian I can acknowledge that what we have isn't fully accurate and sometimes contradicts itself, and Jesus had have been saying our doing some things that drew followers from the Zealots.

[@oceanmachine1906]

Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew and both violence and war are permitted in the Torah. (aside from how Trinitarian Christians literally believe that Jesus gave the Torah to Moses)

[@JonBrownSherman]

I love the use of an instrumental "She's So Heavy" playing when Jesus is being tried and condemned.

[@noahh7946]

I also just binge watched this whole series. It really gives a great overview of the history of the Jewish people in a simple and interesting way. Keep it up :)

[@milascave2]

How do you do that? I can't figure out which one is first, and which order you are supposed to watch them. in.

[@noahh7946]

@@milascave2 If you go into his channel and search through playlists theres one with all 63 videos in order

[@Pandaemoni]

There is a lot of scholarship (though no answers) regarding what portions of the discussions of Jesus in Josephus's works are original, and what are later additions added by Christians. Some scholars (though I think a minority) question whether it might not all have been added later. So the authenticity of the quotation you gave is open to a lot of complicated debate.

[@tyreesejohnson9032]

Where did you find that the School of Hillel acquit Jesus? I would like to know that information

[@danielmalinen6337]

I would think he got it from the Talmud and combines it with the written that Gamaliel had sympathies for the followers of Jesus. Also like Matti Myllykoski, a Finnish historian and adjunct professor of exegetics, has at least pointed out that the Pharisees would not have hand over Jesus to the Romans because their rules (Halacha) forbid the betrayal of their own to outsiders. According to the Halacha, it is a sin. Myllykoski even suspects that the Pharisees were completely out of this mornly court and that this time the Sanhedrin was short-handed. However, the vote of the Sadducees who defended the high priest and his family decided the fate of Jesus. The Sadducees were not bound to Halacha, so there was no obstacle for these pragmatists to hand over Jesus to the Romans and which is along with the info that, according to Josephus, Annas and his house didn't follow the Torah strighty.

[@epyoncat]

I would like to point out that a lack patristic citation of the gospel of Thomas particularly in the few first century and more attested second century sources we have shows that it was never viewed as canonical by early church leaders. See specifically; Clement, Polykarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenius etc

[@jefferyansani1923]

I've never heard or read that Saul of Tarsus had anything to do with Jesus prior to the execution.

[@cuatesanz5611]

Love your videos. Thanks.

[@AthanPius]

Hello, I know in your disclaimer you said that this was not meant to present the traditional Christian view, but I just had a few questions and comments. 1. Why do you believe that the Gospel of Thomas is a better or more informative source for Jesus' early life in comparison to the canonical Gospels or the theorized Q? Is it not generally agreed that the Gospel of Thomas is the product of a break-away sect from Christianity and thus a deliberate attempt to present a Gnostic (and less Jewish) Jesus? 2. Where do you get the information that any part of the Sanhedrin voted to acquit Jesus? 3. I think you are mistaken about saying Jesus had non-Jewish Apostles. Jesus did attract a few non-Jewish followers during his ministry, but Jesus' Tweleve Apostles were all Jewish, and in fact probably all Galileans. Even St Paul who would become an Apostle after the crucifixion was Jewish though he was not from Galilee. 4. You say both that Paul was a Zealot and that he voted for the death of Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee as he refers to himself multiple times (Phil 3:5) and even is said to have been a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Since after the crucifixion Paul is said to be a "young man" (Act 7:58) after the crucifixion of Jesus and there is no mention of him ever being on the Sanhedrin, it is unlikely he ever was.

[@SamAronow]

1. The Gospel of Thomas gives contextual clues that aren't in the other gospels. And obviously I can't cite the Q source since we don't have it. 2. Gamliel and the House of Hillel were notable for their toleration of Christians. Gamliel is on record as having voted to acquit all of Jesus disciples in Acts. 3. You are right. I meant to say "disciples," but at that point it was too late. 4. Paul's affiliation is somewhat ambiguous, but he is referred to repeatedly as a Zealot (this get kinda confusing because the Pharisees by this point are no longer a single party, having fragmented into the houses of Hillel and Shammai and the Zealots). As for Paul's age, it is notable that he only joined the Christians the year after Jesus' crucifixion.

[@AthanPius]

@@SamAronow So if I understand correctly, to self-identify as a Pharisee and a Zealot was not considered mutually exclusive in the middle of the 1st cen? Further, a student of Gamliel may have none the less identified with the Zealots rather than the House of Hillel?

[@okbrostartcoping5835]

@@SamAronow "Back up your claim with proof."

[@Great_Olaf5]

@@AthanPius Those were both functionally political parties, not familial or educational lineages, do you agree with all the political opinions of your teachers?

[@johnwilkes4671]

Beware of "contextual clues". They are what lead brilliant scholars to calculate how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. For every time " contextual clues",especially ones from such tertiary sources as Thomas, have helped to illuminate a subject, the have lead to a hundred fruitless mental masturbations.

[@VincenzoRutiglianoDiaz]

The massacre of the Innocents is not outside of the realm of possibilities, it would have not been the most atrocious thing Herod did

[@Jacob-yg7lz]

Some scholars think that Jesus being born in Bethlehem was actually a later addition done in order to make Jesus's birth fulfil a prophecy about the Messiah. They believe this because The Nativity is only present in Matthew and Luke, but is not present in Mark, which is the book that most likely came first.

[@d.c.8828]

Good video! Very informative, thanks!

[@TroglodyteDiner]

I think Mark 9 is an embellishment. As an observant Jew I don't think Jesus would ever have advocated abandoning Kosher. Interesting since Marcus (a Roman name) is now believed to be one of Peter's close companions. During the Protestant Reformation more extreme Calvinists tried to take them up again. Today, some American Evangelicals also try to keep Kosher

[@frankmckinley1254]

I still find your videos quite informational, thanks.

[@SATMathReview1234]

I really enjoy this series, but I do not think it is possible Paul could have voted in favor of the death of Jesus, he was present at the martyrdom of St Stephen but he himself writes: And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1 Corinthians 15:8 And Paul is extremely forthcoming about how he excelled all his peers in persecution of the church, surely he would have stated very clearly that he voted in favor of the crucifixion of the God man. Plus he would have been extremely young to be on the Sanhedrin at the time. I think it is therefore reasonable to believe Paul never saw Jesus until he appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

[@bdibitonto]

Hi! I love your channel and enjoy your videos. I am a Catholic priest from Jerusalem and a Hebrew speaker. Let me just point out a few mistakes in this video, not for criticism but as a contribution. 1. All the Apostles (12) were Jewish, perhaps you meant “disciples”, in that case you would be right. 2. Joseph Sievers whom I known personally is not “from the Vatican”, he is a scholar who used to direct a center of Jewish studies in Rome, but whatever he wrote was on his own behalf and not something of the Vatican. Btw, which article are you referring to? 3. The Gospel of Thomas is not lost at all. Said so, thank you very much for your beautiful videos, which I really appreciate.

[@jasonwelle]

Your videos are excellent and very informative. I especially appreciate your approach to this subject from a Jewish historical perspective. If I may, I would like to point out that there are other views about the place of kashrut among early Christians, as this was something debated by Peter and Paul. Early Christian communities were often blended communities of gentiles and Jews, and often formed around synagogues where these blended communities were meeting. The question Peter and Paul have a debate about is whether gentiles would have to be circumsized (convert to Judaism and follow the Law) before being baptized and following the way of Jesus. The conclusion was that they did not, so kashrut wouldn't apply to them.

[@pedroledoux9779]

Paul converted nearly 20 years after Jesus crucifixion. I don't know if Peter abandoned Kashrut before or after Paul's conversion. In New Testment in Paul's letter to Galatians tells that Jerusalem Church had two main leaders, Peter and James brother of Jesus, this leadership defended that the gentiles who convert to Christianity should follow Mosaic law(Kashurut, circuncision, shabat etc). In the other side Paul defended that the gentiles who converted to Christianity does not need to follow those laws. The Galatians letter says that this issue caused a public disputation between Peter and Paul.

[@philothegreatful]

A careful reading of the New Testament would point out that the Sanhedrim did not split to convict Jesus, it was more like the decided to put Him in the hands of Pilate as a test of His Messianic claims. If He was truthful He needed ( according to them) to miraculously defeat Pilate. If not He deserved to die. Also, such reading would probably show that Paul didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah only a year after Jesus' crucifixion but probably a decade later or so, and he would be too young to attend the trial of Jesus.

[@philothegreatful]

Also abolishing the shabbat didn't happen, as a folower of Jesus I - today - watch the shabbat. Yet Christians changed the day from Shabbat to Ahad and that happened much later than Peter.

[@salsheikh4508]

Great video. Love the Soundtrack.

Very interesting, however, there are claims here not grounded on fact, but still presented as such. For example, the claim that the Hillel faction in the Sanhedrin voted to acquit Jesus is speculative, and not historical. There are no records to back up the claim. Could it have happened, sure! We just don’t know. I applaud the producer for allowing for a trial in the Sanhedrin as disparate Talmudic traditions either deny it by inference, or state the trial was on hold for 40 days while a quest to find witnesses favorable to Jesus took place. The quest yielded no one according to this tradition, and only then did the trial proceeded. I understand the producer’s claim that he’s depicting history from a Jewish viewpoint and accept his affirmation at face value about his unwillingness to offend. However, good will alone doesn’t entitle him to pass speculation, however well-intentioned, as historical facts.

[@barbarianater]

2:26 bro you just gotta tell me where you sourced your background music from and what is it called. It's beautiful :)

[@logicaredux5205]

Very interesting! As a Christian I adhere to the narrative of the Gospels/Acts, but I appreciate hearing the current scholarship of Jewish thinkers on Jesus.

[@whitelady1063]

מקווה שזה בסדר לכתוב בעברית, יש לנו היסטוריה לא מוערכת אנשים לא מבינים שיש יותר היסטוריה מהורדוס רשע חשמונאים זה רע ולא יודעים את הרצף של התקופה תודה על סרטונים נפלאים על תקופה לא מוכרת בציבור

[@gregwiens9146]

As a Mennonite Pastor, I appreciate your perspective. Very interesting. Thanks 👍👍👍

[@thegoodlydragon7452]

If he was a Pharisee that would be kind of strange, because he's constantly talking about why he thinks the Pharisees are pedantic idiots who are wrong about everything. He says for instance, telling them not to be too overzealous in enforcing the Sabbath, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."

[@carolinpurayidom4570]

They didn't say Jesus was a Pharisee but rather a rabbi

[@Cowpiepizza4]

@@carolinpurayidom4570 Jesus himself says he wasnt a Rabbi, just that he spent time in the temple as a child. This video is a Jewish perspective on Jesus, its not a complete understanding just as a Christian perspective wouldnt be a complete understanding. its good to learn more perspectives and to piece the truth together from them, but dont just take any of them at face-value

[@carolinpurayidom4570]

@@Cowpiepizza4 huh He always accepted the term rabbi and there was verse saying Call no one else rabbi for you only have one teacher.

[@AtlantiansGaming]

You said late in the video that not all Jesus’ Apostles were Jewish, but of the 14 Apostles, all those named in the Gospels and Acts, all 14 were Jewish. (Jesus named 12, and then Paul and Matthias were named by the remaining 11 after Judas’ suicide).

[@x999uuu1]

He said he meant disciples in general in another comment

[@Mike-gz4xn]

Why are we using CE instead of AD?

[@carlo8641]

Great video like always

[@milobem4458]

From the intro i thought you were going to say something like "Jesus was bad and he didn't exist anyway". Your take is actually less critical than many "progressive Christian" historians. Very nice. Also, Jaffa is lovely, but I thought you lived in LA.

[@ibnyahud]

I hope you don't leave off this period here... Herod Agrippa was quite an interesting Judean noble / "king" that had some influence in Rome...there are a lot of Jewish and Roman sources about him...

[@SamAronow]

Next week.

[@maulanakarman8955]

@@SamAronow Hello, can you do a video about Japanese Jews.

[@charlesandrews2360]

All those years wasted reading when I could have waited for the 10-minute video. I do love these videos though Very informative

[@sohamdawn566]

Nice Video!

[@MrRinoHunter]

Learned quite a bit, thanks.

[@MalachiCo0]

One major problem I found in this video: Peter never said Kashrut should be abandoned. Where you're getting this from is that one dream he had in Acts 10 where God said to "rise kill and eat". Later on in the very same chapter, he says to Cornelius "You yourselves know that it is not permitted for a Jewish man to associate with a non-Jew or to visit him. Yet God has shown me that I should call no one unholy or unclean." Like, it's one of my top pet peeves when people claim that Peter advocated for the end of kashrut, because it's very obviously not true if you actually read the text.

[@richardglady3009]

Thank you very much for your videos. Just a small request, when you have slides that provide information, but you don’t read, please leave them on for just a hair longer, so I can pause the video and read them. They are filled with info. I wish the info about Jesus as a Pharisee was more generally available (my issue-as I don’t know German).

[@steveweinstein3222]

I have no problem pausing the video to read them.

[@robertruggiero9999]

What’s with all this “bce” and “ce” ? What is the trigger from moving from “bce” to “ce” ? If it involves a point in Christ’s life why not keep with “BC” and “AD” (or even “AC”) ??

[@paulcohen6727]

The use of BCE or before common era and CE, common era, are attempts to secularize BC and AD which have religious connotations: before Christ and Anno Domini, that is: in the year of the Lord .

[@stephencaparella3784]

That was a very good presentation, however, I have one question. You said Paul converted a year after the death of Peter. I ve never heard from any historian or scholar. Most Scholars and Historians would say that Peter and Paul conversed with eachother after pauls converstion. I would love to hear your comment on that. Thank you

[@elizabethhaley4434]

Paul and Peter met after Paul was converted, it's in the Bible.

[@Great_Olaf5]

Afraid to say you misheard, he said that Paul converted a year after Jesus' death. 8:45

[@stephencaparella3784]

@@Great_Olaf5 I didnt mishere anything , he s innacurate, its cool , cant get everything correct. still a good channel

[@cariboubearmalachy1174]

I thought Josephus' mention of Jesus was a later interpolation.

[@classicalmusful]

I think my only critique is that in some of your attempts at placing Jesus in his immediate cultural context you use some historians & historical critics that are already outdated, but this is much better research than most videos out there on a similar subject matter.

[@Cowpiepizza4]

Josephus isnt outdated lol

[@allentchang]

You do look different from your cartoon avatar. There's a mulberry tree next to the The Arab-Hebrew Theater in Jaffa that has very sweet mulberries in either May or June. There's also a restaurant that served pretty good mansaf (although it's non kosher because of meat mixed with yoghurt). Far north away from Jaffa in the northern side of the Tel Aviv beach, there was a restaurant with tilapia with french fries.

[@nomadman1196]

I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within [l]me. 15 My strength is dried up like a piece of pottery, And my tongue clings to my jaws; And You lay me [m]in the dust of death. 16 For dogs have surrounded me; [n]A band of evildoers has encompassed me; [o]They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And they cast lots for my clothing.

[@zacharycurrie3708]

The hypothesis that Jesus was a pharisee actually goes all the way back to the 19th century religious scholar Abraham Geiger. Also, it's highly doubtful that Jesus was fluent in Greek. As for the idea that Jesus entertained the ideology of the zealots, there is about as much evidence against that as for it; and any evidence for it is better explained by Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet , after the fashion of Honi the Circle drawer or Hanina ben Dosa, rather than a zealot.

[@drats6433]

the tradition that he was a pharisee is actually much much much older and i think it seems evident he was a zealot, only that the term zealot is about as ambiguous as pharisee is in reality. Much how there are many different groups and schools of thought within capitalism or communism or left-wing/right-wing dichotomy politics. the boundaries seem to get much more blurred during times of crisis. nowadays it seems as easy to be branded a right winger as it is a left winger on any given day depending on any given way any given person interpenetrates any given phrase you say. you see the pharisees and the zealots as a mass, quite close together. as close as the letter of the law type rabbis and the spirit of the law type rabbis. you see also the daggers froup mentioned separate from the zealots BUT also a part of them. i think zealot is a much broader term than people think. think antifa or proud boys in todays climate as a sect who are considered by most people to be either too extreme, or according to some, not extreme enough. manly people see them as somewhat being the same group at the same time. i think much of the apocalyptic perspective was placed upon jesus by his disciples. most of what jesus is quoted as saying in the torah is about as hilelist rabbinical as you can get aswell as throne restoring, self autonomous davidic kingdom as you can get. I think his whole point of throwing 40 thousand legions of pigs into the sea is exactly his support for the overthrow of roman occupation and darn near no person considered a messiah during this period was any different, including samaritan messianic figures.

[@jasonstewart7834]

Very nice video! However not entirely accurate, Peter wasn't really the top leader. That was James the Just, the brother of Jesus, whose execution in 62 AD caused a huge uproar in Jerusalem. Christianity was divided between Jewish christians called Ebionites or Nazarenes, some of whom rejected Paul as an Apostel for making jesus' Jewish sect, anti Jewish and the gentile pagan christians. The Christianity we know today evolved from the gentile pagan followed of Paul, while the Jewish christians (Ebionites/Nazarenes) believed up until their disappearence in the 5th century, that the Torah was binding for followers of Jesus and that Christianity was a corrupted religion. They disappeared because of gentile christian persecution on one side and rabbinic judaism persecution on the other side

[@marie-joelleraussou]

And where would one situate the modern messianic Jews?

[@jasonstewart7834]

@@marie-joelleraussou Hmm, most of it fits into the Pauline camp. Messianics are mostly people with a Jewish heritage, not perse of serious Jewish faith, who were converted by protestant, baptist or evangelical gentile Christian. So most modern Messianics are in complete line with the council of Nicea (believe in the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the vicarious atonement, the 13 letters of Paul, etc). Messianics are ironically not close to the ancient Messianics (Nazarenes and Ebionites). So modern Messianics are just Jewish (Pauline) protestants

[@d.b.levitt]

You, sir, a very good educator.

[@ben8557]

7:25 All 12 apostles were definitely Jewish. Do you mean disciples or followers?

[@SamAronow]

I did; it's addressed in the corrections video.

[@pedroledoux9779]

By this time the Pharisees were divided into Beit Hilel's sect and Beit Shemai's sect. In sermon on the mount some ideas brought by Jesus seems to be related to Hilel however Jesus position about divorce was exactly the same as the Shemai.

[@tchorveiik]

Fantastic video, I'm a Christian so pretty aware of the current paradigm shift in theological/bib studies circles to recontextualise our beliefs back to the 1st C Jewish world they came about in. cf. Hebrew scholar Tim Mackie's 'Bible Project' at the popular level. Its really great to hear a Jewish voice on the topic. "Rather than, as Nietzsche puts it, Platonism for the masses, Christianity should be Judaism for the masses" is a quote i heard from someone. Paul is a character especially undergoing much reinterpretation in the current paradigm shift. His supposed opposition to the Jewish law it was realised was greatly exaggerated by protestants eager to discredit the mechanical "go to heaven" system of the medieval church as pharisaical (a term rather unfair to the pharisees, which Paul ironically considered himself to be). I'm currently reading Tom Wright's biography of Paul, a cracking book on this famous Jew from history. In contrast to what many assume, Paul claimed to keep kosher himself, pushed his half jewish disciple Timothy to get circumcised and seemingly met in the synagogue etc. on saturdays (the last one about head coverings is a bit murky too). He, the new perspective professes, saw the Christian development as God's chosen people expanding. Rather than a way of getting to heaven, Kosher laws were ethnic distinctives, so non Jews should not be made to become Jews to follow Jesus. Thus rather than distancing Christianity from its jewish roots, Paul should be seen as attempting to break down barriers between Jewish followers and their new gentile brothers and sisters.

[@allisonoverfield4244]

Do you have proof (outside of what’s written in the NT) that Peter ate non-kosher foods at Simon’s house? More importantly, that he decided Christians could eat whatever they want? I’m a “Christian” who believes what’s written in the NT about this encounter is not properly contextualized and that the dream Peter had was purely symbolic of Jewish-Gentile relations.

[@miriotogata5853]

Exactly

[@ungrateful-66]

Some kosher laws were and are ahead of their times, like with mixing meat and milk-based dairies, or shellfish, but the restrictions on pork never were or are based on any demonstrable or provable study.

[@carolinpurayidom4570]

You know what this makes a lot of the accounts of Jesus in the bible make sense I never knew Jesus Christ was low key a politician now it makes sense as to why people mistakenly thought he was going to overthrow Rome and Rome went after him. Is it just me but it seems like Rome's involvement in the persecution of Christ seems to be sugarcoated.

[@nonameronin1]

For what reason do you state that the Gospel of Thomas is partially lost?

[@estergrant6713]

i found it very interesting that paul himself voted to convict jesus. i think that would really surprise many christians

[@baneofbanes]

I mean he went around murdering Christians when he was still Saul so it shouldn’t be that much of one.

[@estergrant6713]

@@baneofbanes right i mean its in the bible that he persecuted christians before he converted but honestly i think a lot of christians don’t really read the bible. i imagine a strong amount dont even know he persecuted christians before becoming one

[@gabrielethier2046]

5:11 to 7:11 what song is that?

[@Simon_Alexnder]

What is the source for the fact that Beis Hillel voted to aquit Jesus,

[@bglrj]

I was a Christian minister for 43 years. Dang, that was good!

[@yosef5276]

He did not declare all foods kosher that’s an edition by the editor. He says he didn’t eat of the unclean animals and never said he did eat of it. According to Jesus word that would make Peter least in heaven by adding to the Torah or taking away

[@djlaket]

Amazing 💯💯💯💯💯

[@ungrateful-66]

I miss living and working nearby to other Jews more than any of the other things missed from my hometown in South Florida, but can’t imagine ever returning. Two other Jewish friends who’d also relocated also appear unlikely to ever return. Such a pretty place to grow up but became unmanageable and unlivable for too many of us.

[@williamforlines9724]

Outstanding presentation

[@vianabdullah2837]

Came from JJ McCullough

[@iparipaitegianiparipaitegi4643]

Any evidence Jesus was not born in Bethlehem ?

[@haroldkay6303]

Extainty was and is considered another form of idolatry by the Jews......and was and is considered a separate religion

[@sabrinajohnson9579]

Like this

[@vinfacts11]

bro do some more face cam. You look much much more handsome than those wierd vectored pictures of urself.

[@CIMAmotor]

Josephus' writings regarding Jesus were almost certainly later additions.

[@92vanguard]

I think an error you're making is the automatic assumption that the "gospels" were written by the names appended to them. They were not written by those whose names are attached to them. With Luke being the last written. And written decades after Jesus death. The earliest writings regarding Christianity being those of Paul, of which some were probably written by him. There are no existing writings from Jesus himself and we can only assume that what has been recorded as his statements by second hand writers who most probably never met the man himself and those of Paul who most definitely never did, are accurate? No, I don't think so.

[@jaystrickland4151]

How did you find out it was the wrong house ? Did the owner come out and say you had the wrong house?

[@ennisel]

The only problem of subscribing to him being born in Bethlehem of Nazareth is: 1. Scripture didn't specify that. 2. That narrative wouldn't fit the pilgrim feasts command for men to be in Jerusalem, he was highly likely he was born on Tabernacles; what I'm trying to work out; was men allowed paternity leave to be with their maidens... On simcat Torah -the 8th day -he was circumcised Yes you're right, he wasn't born in December, but most likely conceived then; on what would become Chanukah... The irony of it all, that the one who'd be called the light of the world, came on what would be a future festival called the festival of lights. I posit that Peter would not have abandoned kosher dietary laws. It's further explained that there were 4 prohibitions steming from the Torah, that if adopted by these gentile adherents, would of had them on the same page of the culture, because those laws which where the benchmark was their pass to be able to fellowship with the Jewish believers ... They were called Nattzerin's, but nicknamed Christians as a mockery when the gospel went to Antioch, by the Antiochans.

[@brenosantana1458]

If you based the information about Peter and the law from acts 10, that is not the conclusion from the text.

[@NaviRyan]

Just curious was their a great schism between Jews and early Christians like the great schism between Greek Orthodox and Catholicism where both side excommunicated each other?

[@procyon6370]

The Gospel of Thomas isn't lost. We've had a full Coptic manuscript for a long time.

[@andrewsuryali8540]

He's talking about the theoretical Gospel of Thomas, not the (possibly gnostic) one we have. The theoretical Thomas, like Q, is believed to have been a sayings gospel that recorded only Jesus' sayings and preserved his earliest teachings before whoever wrote our surviving version got to it (and added his own words).

[@iib9123]

This Simon the Tanner part was doubly hilarious

[@rajaeelastname4878]

You mention not all disciples were jewish. What were they ?

[@jefferyansani1923]

i really enjoy these videos but the background music in this is very distracting and annoying.

[@jamesdykes1829]

Is the rock Peter? Or is it the spiritual words Christ was speaking leading up to this statement.

[@billmaldonado1058]

Do you know of Tovia Singer?

[@anneeq008]

Hold up.... How do we know he was fluent in 3 languages?!

[@TheFlappening]

Most rabbis were/are

[@Great_Olaf5]

@@TheFlappening Given the content of the video, that wouldn't work, he was using Jesus' knowledge of those as part of his evidence for Jesus being a rabbi.

[@carolinpurayidom4570]

He could read the Torah, speak to the normal Jews and spoke to Greek people

[@Great_Olaf5]

@@carolinpurayidom4570 He also made a few puns that only work in Greek.

[@Dahras1]

While this is a wonderful video (and series as well!), I do think that your quote of Matthew 10:34 doesn't have the proper context. The entirety of Matthew 10 is a speech given by Jesus to his disciples that describes how they are to conduct their ministry. Jesus predicts that by proclaiming his teachings, the disciples will face persecution from both Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 10:17 "Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues."). Jesus commands his disciples to continue preaching regardless, saying that the violence done to the body cannot compare to violence done to the soul by not following him. In this larger context, Matthew 10:34 is clearly a quote that compares the peace of conforming to Roman and Jewish society to the violence visited upon those living as a follower of Jesus. Obviously, Jesus was not a preacher of pure pacifism, nor can it be ignored that this very quote has been misused by many Christians to justify atrocities. But as evidence of Jesus' own philosophy as recorded in the Gospels, it doesn't point to a toleration of violence to achieve religious ends.

[@TroglodyteDiner]

Pharisees Gamiel and Nicodemus are venerated as Christian saints.

[@lelonfurr1200]

very nice and consise ropt

[@antonivsfortis]

I had no idea that the house of hillel want to acquit Jesus😮

[@phillipmargrave]

So are you saying Jesus was the younger brother of Obadiah?

[@nicksklavos]

Ts ts ts ts. And why you take the synoptics as history? A bit uneducated on the subject. But its ok, cant know everything.

[@S.J.L]

Jesus was a Capricorn.